About your Search

20130801
20130831
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)
. neil: should he have been on top of the nsa, or is that too much for mark cuban? >> come on neil. >> you are mr. internet star. >> i don't see it as that big a deal, i know -- i get audited almost every year, all my foundations get audited pretty much every year, most of my businesses. neil: both democratic and republican administrations alike. >> i don't feel like a victim, i still have to compete, with nsa it is disappointing there was not transparency up front they were doing this, and we found out about it the way we did. about, bits are bits, if you think your mailbox was protected and they could not find out what they wantedo. there is not a much privacy as people would like to expect, particularly in an era where i would rather be protected. neil: if you want your privacy get over it, is it that bad? >> it is that good. neil: you hear the other instances like hacking or sites shutting down, and instagram, and nazdaq, so many others, washington post, "new york times," amazon, again and again, you see a pattern. >> yeah, you better believe it, every single digital asset we h
to pounce on this nsa mess to see how the heck it got messy. what we did not tell you is that it would take 60 days to find out. ♪ neil: all right. good news on this whole nsa mess. in 60 days, 60 days, we'll get to the bottom of this, 60 days. that's how long we have to wait to hear from the president's so-called surveillance panel to release initial findings, 60 days. imagine how much could happen in that time. why, look what happened in the last 60 days. on the heels the government collected 115 million americans phone records, we heard they were demanding and getting billions of e-mails from every major online site out there; then news that the nsa had 75% of all internet traffic under its watch, reports later that courts slapped the nsa more than a few times for this kind of overreach over just the last few years; then snooping on phone calls made abroad, phone calls from abroad, and nsa snoops spying on girlfriends, later explained it's just a few snoops on just a few girlfriends, and that's just in the lass 60 days. can you imagine what we'll discover in the next 60 days? the hills
neil: now we can safely say the nsa more than just kind of broke the law. try thousands of times. welcome, everybody. i'm neil cavuto. not just fine. don't take it for me. take it from despise himself. an internal audit out of no less than the national curity agency it's often define 200776 violations of established court orders regarding surveillance on americans, are targets in this country. with the nsa demands in a speech read what anyone else would call ridiculous. hundreds of cases of supposedly unintended interception of u.s. e-mail and phone calls and typographical errors that prompted overly aggressive searches. this group for one thing, not responding to them or even reporting them is quite another. it's not only sloppy but illegal and now we come to find that the smartest intelligence surveillance court that is supposed to keep an eye on them to not even learn about some of these violations until months after the fact willing among constituonal which is kind of like locking the barn door after all the animals left. my friends, step back and ponder the sheer magnitude o
mind the question of how complicit different companies were in the nsa scandal. that is a lit je let jet matt q. but, at same time, google is doing with that data is trying to sell you stuff for the most part. what the nsa is doing is trying to find a reason to put new jail. neil: they can take leaps with that and share that with a lot of folks, that we never intended to happen. katherine thank you very much. now to lawyer who is livid. rebecca rose woodland said that by breaking into your e-mails is breaking the law. rebecca. google says no, this is a part of what you sign up for as a g-mail user, and as a g-ml receiver. >> how can a g-mail receiver sign up anything? neil: apparently, when you open that e-mail,l, you become vulnerable. >> and i knew? did you know. first of all you don't distinguish where it is from, you don't accept the terms with every e-mail does a come a question, do you accept the terms of that g-mail user's account, they don't get that, if that i want to take my information, aol users all net thrown out to every e-mail user, if they want to save it they can tou
the text, and nsa on the prowl. >> no, no, no, look, it makes sense in terms of tort law. were they to allow this if you couldn't know -- neil: you're a lawyer; right? >> i am. causation is a very real concept in tort law. listen, from a practical point of view -- neil: how about big government creeps? now, not only to the driver, but anyone communicating with that driver. >> if they know the driver's driving? neil: how do you think they know? how do you think they will know? >> two ways. one way is -- neil: give us your phone. >> thanks a lot, i don't want to hand over the phone. >> let me answer. one way is ed. we have that in situations. there's evidence. if there's no evidence, then you're not going to be spobl. evidence, and that comes out in the court. if they put you on the stand and you were the one texting, and they asked you the questions, saying, did you know that person was driving at the time you were texting to them? if you say, yes, then we know. the other way is a possibility. they may look at your phone. >> oh, my. neil: that's the first way. >> exactly. >> tha
Search Results 0 to 13 of about 14 (some duplicates have been removed)